BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

I am on the cusp of buying some Zeiss Victory SF 10 x 42, but the only thing that is holding me back is a number of reviews I have read that suggests that the build quality is not up to scratch for such a high end bin.

Could any Zeiss Victory users on the forum please confirm or dispell that rumour?

I have both the 8X and 10X Ziess SF and think they are a solid product.

Some of the concern may be due to the fact that Zeiss uses a composite material for the eye cups rather than metal and so the thought of plastic comes to mind. I like the composite approach better because if it is dropped on the eye cup, the eye cup is more likely to break without damaging the eye piece threads compared to using metal. Then it is just a matter of removing the old eye cup, calling Zeiss for a replacement, and then screwing in the replacement a few days later. Damaged eye piece threads means sending it in for repair. Lee put together a nice write on replacing eye cups that also applies to the Conquest.

I've have no concerns about the build quality. Any issues would most likely show up at the time of purchase. All manufacturers can have failures but I do not see the SF as being any more trouble prone as the others. If an issue does come up, Zeiss is good on getting it fixed.

__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

I have an 8x and a 10x and they have a solid build and have just come back from a tough 3 weeks visit to Islay. They have been knocked about on North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist, Ardnamurchan and many other rugged places and they just eat it up.

One thing that confuses some folks. The weight of the SF has been shifted to the eyecup end by reducing the objective lenses and by the addition of a field flattener in the eyepiece. It means the handling is superb and the weight is contained within your hand rather than being out at the objective ends like a heavy pendulum. This means when you pick them up, they don't seem as heavy as other binos and I have heard some folks say they don't feel as well built because they don't feel as heavy. But this is a deliberate design choice which means the handling is so good I can watch Otters for longer without having to lower the bins to rest and can hold the SF 10x steadier than some other 10x.

I have both the 8X and 10X Ziess SF and think they are a solid product.

Some of the concern may be due to the fact that Zeiss uses a composite material for the eye cups rather than metal and so the thought of plastic comes to mind. I like the composite approach better because if it is dropped on the eye cup, the eye cup is more likely to break without damaging the eye piece threads compared to using metal. Then it is just a matter of removing the old eye cup, calling Zeiss for a replacement, and then screwing in the replacement a few days later. Damaged eye piece threads means sending it in for repair. Lee put together a nice write on replacing eye cups that also applies to the Conquest.

I've have no concerns about the build quality. Any issues would most likely show up at the time of purchase. All manufacturers can have failures but I do not see the SF as being any more trouble prone as the others. If an issue does come up, Zeiss is good on getting it fixed.

How many times have you dropped your binoculars on the eye cups and had to replace them? I have never dropped any of my binoculars. An eye cup get's used a lot going in and out and in my experience metal will last longer and is smoother because it can me machined more precisely to closer tolerances. I will take metal eye cups and a magnesium body on my binocular over plastic any day.

How many times have you dropped your binoculars on the eye cups and had to replace them? I have never dropped any of my binoculars. An eye cup get's used a lot going in and out and in my experience metal will last longer and is smoother because it can me machined more precisely to closer tolerances. I will take metal eye cups and a magnesium body on my binocular over plastic any day.

"I expect it to hold up just fine so long I do not have a significant accident with it. So far, I have never dropped one (knock on wood!). If something bad does happen, then I will get a chance to test out the Nikon No Fault Policy!"

__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

I am on the cusp of buying some Zeiss Victory SF 10 x 42, but the only thing that is holding me back is a number of reviews I have read that suggests that the build quality is not up to scratch for such a high end bin.

Could any Zeiss Victory users on the forum please confirm or dispell that rumour?

Many thanks

MacHector

I have owned and used the SF 10x42 for over 2 years. As the other owners have mentioned above, it is a very nice binocular, and its quality is very good.

I would disregard anything posted, from Dennis or Chosun, as they are not
reliable. I am not sure why they have posted, they have no real experience with this model.

Are the eye cups on both the gray model and the black model made from the same composite?

Best I can tell, the material used to make both versions of the eye cups is the same. The only difference I am aware of between the two is the gray model cups have one intermediate stop and the black model cups have two intermediate stops. Folks that own a gray model can call Zeiss and request the newer design and they will screw on and fit just like the originals. That is what I did and so I was able to compare the two. If the voices in my head say otherwise, I will let you know.

__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Best I can tell, the material used to make both versions of the eye cups is the same. The only difference I am aware of between the two is the gray model cups have one intermediate stop and the black model cups have two intermediate stops. Folks that own a gray model can call Zeiss and request the newer design and they will screw on and fit just like the originals. That is what I did and so I was able to compare the two. If the voices in my head say otherwise, I will let you know.

P.S. I would agree that design for the unlikely event of a bin dropped on an eyecup is of less importance than the quality, 'feel', and functionality of the eyecups in usage - which should be commensurate with the level of the asking price. By all means design a sacrificial eyecup assembly in the event of an accidental drop, but not at the expense of the quality of the functionality in operation.

I found the eyecups the most low rent part of the SF, and difficult for me to set up satisfactorily. I would suggest the OP try these out in person and see how it works for them. I wear glasses and have to back them out just a smidge - other people will be different. What counts is how it works for them.

If plastic is so great why are all of the best binoculars made out of magnesium? Even Zeiss switched back to magnesium after trying plastic on their FL line.

It is proving, price wise, to be an expensive change over for Zeiss; and FYI, as CJ has pointed out to you, the Victory FLs weren't plastic. Additionally they were successful sellers going back to 2004.

It is proving, price wise, to be an expensive change over for Zeiss; and FYI, as CJ has pointed out to you, the Victory FLs weren't plastic. Additionally they were successful sellers going back to 2004.

Bob

I know the FL's were fine and they sold well but why did Zeiss change back to magnesium? Because it is less expensive to use magnesium or is it that people want magnesium and it is all about marketing like CJ says?

I know the FL's were fine and they sold well but why did Zeiss change back to magnesium? Because it is less expensive to use magnesium or is it that people want magnesium and it is all about marketing like CJ says?

Dennis,

I would not say that Zeiss changed back to magnesium. I would say that Zeiss was simply changing to magnesium which is a lighter weight but more expensive metal to use in binocular frames. Zeiss's FL series larger binoculars got their weight from the large AK prisms they used; otherwise the Carbon Fibre bodies they had were both lightweight and strong.

And when I compare the weights of my (carbon fibre bodied) Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL T* and my Swarovski 7x42 SLC B the Zeiss is much lighter in weight than the Swarovski is.

I suspect very little, and that is disturbing to those here that own and use this binocular.

Jerry

Jerry

CJ certainly has her own unique point of view on many subjects but she is entitled to this and she is dead right about the eyecups on SF being low rent. They accomplish the job but are not to the standard of the rest of the bino.

As to etiquette on Bird Forum, if you disagree with someone then explain your own experience. It is not etiquette to imply or state that someone has no right to post on Bird Forum because they have less experience with a bino than you. This would exclude beginners for example and Bird Forum is an inclusive forum not an exclusive one.

CJ certainly has her own unique point of view on many subjects but she is entitled to this and she is dead right about the eyecups on SF being low rent. They accomplish the job but are not to the standard of the rest of the bino.

As to etiquette on Bird Forum, if you disagree with someone then explain your own experience. It is not etiquette to imply or state that someone has no right to post on Bird Forum because they have less experience with a bino than you. This would exclude beginners for example and Bird Forum is an inclusive forum not an exclusive one.